Do Any Lds Scholars Think Certain New Testament Books Are Forgeries?

[jerryp48]

Bart Ehrman in his book Jesus, Interrupted writes:

"This view that the New Testament contains books written under false names is taught at virtually all the major institutions of higher learning except strongly evangelical schools throughout the Western world. It is the view taught in all the major textbooks on the New Testament used in these institutions. It is the view taught in seminaries and divinity schools."

I was just wondering if some LDS new testament scholars agree that books such as 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Peter and various others as purported in Ehrman's book are forgeries?

ps, It's been a while since I've posted and I'm posting from my iPad so forgive me for not using the quote tags.

Edited September 28, 2011 by jerryp48

[The Nehor]

By forgeries do you mean that they weren't necessarily written by the person whose name is attached? If so, then yes.

If you mean forgery as in a lie snuck in after the fact with the intent to deceive then no.

I will say that whoever sold you a Bible with 3 Peter in it is running a scam.

[jerryp48]

Whoops my bad on the 3 Peter.

By forgeries I mean books written pseudonymously in the name of Peter or Paul. Although I'm not sure why, Ehrman does not talk much about the possibility that the purported author had a more literate ghost writer that spoke and wrote Greek.

[altersteve]

The only thing I question is the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospels, especially the Gospel of John. I can't see how the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation could possibly have been written by the same person.

[Mansquatch]

Hamblin did some reviews of Forged and put it on the Tubes. If you would like to check out his POV

Edited September 28, 2011 by Mansquatch

[Damien the Leper]

The Pauline Epistles that are in question are:

Pseudonymous Writings

a) Collosians

b) Ephesians

c) 2 Thessalonians

In-authentic Writings

a) 1 Timothy

b) 2 Timothy

c) Titus

2 Peter and Jude are also considered to be controversial given their datings at the beginning of the 2nd Century.

Hebrews, the 4 Gospels, The Revelation were all written anonymously but are considered to be theologically authentic. However, the Revelation was not the first considered for Apocalyptic inclusion. Irenaeus of Lyon was highly in favor of the Shepherd of Hermas (which may have been ousted and replaced by Jude). Other groups disputed the inclusion of 2 Peter over the inclusion of the Apocalypse of Peter.

The Muratorian Canon gives detail on the earliest "approved" canon. I would personally like to know who "approved" the canon since we know it occurred prior to the first Council of Nicea.

[diglot]

The Pauline Epistles that are in question are:

Pseudonymous Writings

a) Collosians

b) Ephesians

c) 2 Thessalonians

In-authentic Writings

a) 1 Timothy

b) 2 Timothy

c) Titus

That is a pretty accurate summary of scholarship on the authorship issue.

Just to clarify, there is no hard consensus on whether Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians are genuinely Pauline. From the literature I have read on them, it seems to be something like 70/30 in favor of non-Pauline authorship (though most seem to agree that while they were not written by Paul, they were written by followers of Pauline thought).

The "Pastoral Epistles" of Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy are unanimously agreed upon by scholars as being pseudepigraphical letters.

This leaves only seven letters in the NT which are unanimously considered to be written by Paul: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon.

2 Peter and Jude are also considered to be controversial given their datings at the beginning of the 2nd Century.

There are very strong arguments, in my opinion, for Jude being an early work coming from the milieu of Palestinian Jewish-Christianity.

2 Peter, on the other hand, is unanimously regarded as a late and pseudepigraphical writing.

Hebrews, the 4 Gospels, The Revelation were all written anonymously but are considered to be theologically authentic. However, the Revelation was not the first considered for Apocalyptic inclusion. Irenaeus of Lyon was highly in favor of the Shepherd of Hermas (which may have been ousted and replaced by Jude). Other groups disputed the inclusion of 2 Peter over the inclusion of the Apocalypse of Peter.

There was a lot of dispute over the inclusion and exclusion of quite a few pieces of literature during the first few centuries. The formation of the New Testament is a particular area of interest of mine in my early Christian studies. All I can say is that it is very fascinating!

The Muratorian Canon gives detail on the earliest "approved" canon. I would personally like to know who "approved" the canon since we know it occurred prior to the first Council of Nicea.

There was no person or group of people who "approved" the NT canon. Though, the Council of Carthage somewhat fixed the issue in the West (397 CE), and Athanasius' Festal Letter (367 CE) fixed it to a degree in the East. Nevertheless, there still was conflict over the issue.

What do you mean when you say "we know it occurred prior to the Council of Nicea"? I ask this because there wasn't an official NT canon before Nicaea.

edited to add: There is a common misconception out there that the Council of Nicaea was when the NT canon was formed. That is an utterly untrue claim. Sadly, though, I have seen it repeated ad nauseum in Muslim apologetics.

Edited September 28, 2011 by diglot

[Damien the Leper]

What do you mean when you say "we know it occurred prior to the Council of Nicea"? I ask this because there wasn't an official NT canon before Nicaea.

edited to add: There is a common misconception out there that the Council of Nicaea was when the NT canon was formed. That is an utterly untrue claim. Sadly, though, I have seen it repeated ad nauseum in Muslim apologetics.

The Muratorian Fragment is dated to about 170 CE due to its referencing Pius I who was a bishop of Rome. Others would claim a much later dating to the 4th century. Disregarding the latter, if it is dated to 170 then the Council of Nicea (325 CE) did not determine the NT Canon. The council was constructed of Christian religionists determining in it's earliest form the orthodox tradition and theology of Christianity.

[Vance]

The only thing I question is the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospels, especially the Gospel of John. I can't see how the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation could possibly have been written by the same person.

According to Richar Bauckham in "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony" John is in fact authored by John, another eyewitness from the beginning, but not the son of Zebedee.

[diglot]

The Muratorian Fragment is dated to about 170 CE due to its referencing Pius I who was a bishop of Rome. Others would claim a much later dating to the 4th century. Disregarding the latter, if it is dated to 170 then the Council of Nicea (325 CE) did not determine the NT Canon. The council was constructed of Christian religionists determining in it's earliest form the orthodox tradition and theology of Christianity.

Absolutely no one would argue that the Council of Nicaea was when the NT was determined. I say this because it sounds like you are implying that some teach that the Council of Nicaea is when the canon was formed.

While I would agree with the mid-late second century dating of the Muratorian fragment, it is erroneous to use that canon list to conclude that the New Testament canon had been determined. I say this because the Muratorian canon list is not the same NT canon that we possess today, and thus it was not listing a decisively determined canon. The New Testament canon formation was a very fluid development which took until the end of the fourth century until it was settled for the most part.

[Damien the Leper]

Absolutely no one would argue that the Council of Nicaea was when the NT was determined. I say this because it sounds like you are implying that some teach that the Council of Nicaea is when the canon was formed.

While I would agree with the mid-late second century dating of the Muratorian fragment, it is erroneous to use that canon list to conclude that the New Testament canon had been determined. I say this because the Muratorian canon list is not the same NT canon that we possess today, and thus it was not listing a decisively determined canon. The New Testament canon formation was a very fluid development which took until the end of the fourth century until it was settled for the most part.

I think you and I are misunderstanding each other. I have, at times, heard uninformed people (LDS and non-LDS) state that Nicea is where the canon was decided. THIS IS NOT TRUE given the earliest date of the Muratorian Canon and the First Council of Nicea.

I know that the Muratorian Canon is not the complete canon in existence today. Consider the fact that Origen was a fan of the Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas while Eusebius disregarded them as either unimportant or fraudulent.

It would appear, given their commentaries, that Athanasius and Eusebius were more in agreement on what was canonical as opposed to Irenaeus and Origen.

Personally, I would prefer this list for canon:

The Four Gospels

The Acts of the Apostles

Romans

1 & 2 Corinthians

Galatians

Philemon

1 Thessalonians

1 Peter

1, 2, 3 John

The Revelation*

The Shepherd of Hermas*

1 Clement

Apocalypse of Peter*

That's just my opinion. The three books with asterisks were chosen to be comparative since they are all apocalyptic writings.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Valentinus

[diglot]

I think you and I are misunderstanding each other. I have, at times, heard uninformed people (LDS and non-LDS) state that Nicea is where the canon was decided. THIS IS NOT TRUE given the earliest date of the Muratorian Canon and the First Council of Nicea.

Saying that the canon was decided at Nicaea is not true because the Council of Nicaea had absolutely nothing to do with forming the canon. But yes I see what you mean.

Personally, I would prefer this list for canon:

The Four Gospels

The Acts of the Apostles

Romans

1 & 2 Corinthians

Galatians

Philemon

1 Thessalonians

1 Peter

1, 2, 3 John

The Revelation

The Shepherd of Hermas

1 Clement

Apocalypse of Peter

That's just my opinion.

I'm not sure what my personal preference would be for the NT canon. On the one hand I would like to cut out books that are not considered to have been genuinely written by an Apostle. But on the other hand I would like to open up the canon to embrace books that were held in high esteem by many Christian communities (e.g. Shepherd). I guess I'll just have to settle for the one that we have now. Though, considering I do not really believe the NT texts to be inerrant, infallible, and perhaps not inspired, I guess it doesn't really matter what is and isn't in the canon.

Edited September 28, 2011 by diglot

[Damien the Leper]

Saying that the canon was decided at Nicaea is not true because the Council of Nicaea had absolutely nothing to do with forming the canon. But yes I see what you mean.

I'm not sure what my personal preference would be for the NT canon. On the one hand I would like to cut out books that are not considered to have been genuinely written by an Apostle. But on the other hand I would like to open up the canon to embrace books that were held in high esteem by many Christian communities (e.g. Shepherd). I guess I'll just have to settle for the one that we have now. Though, considering I do not really believe the NT texts to be inerrant, infallible, and perhaps not inspired, I guess it doesn't really matter what is and isn't in the canon.

I did want to include Hebrews to the list. What are your thoughts on the possibility of Priscilla authoring that letter?

[diglot]

I did want to include Hebrews to the list. What are your thoughts on the possibility of Priscilla authoring that letter?

I know that Adolf Harnack suggested that she was the author of Hebrews, but personally I don't see how one can make a strong case for it. I mean, the argumentation that Harnack used to advocate Priscilla's authorship could be applied to other people as it was mainly vague generalities from what I remember (for instance, he said that the author had to have been quite educated and possibly a leader type figure in the Roman church). While such things could be said to be true for Priscilla, they could also have been true for quite a few people in the early Church. I feel like Harnack latched onto Priscilla just because she is mentioned more than a few times in the NT (there are 5 or 6 references to her IIRC).

Though, if the author was indeed a woman, it could possibly explain why the author of the epistle was not common knowledge in the early church (due to their being controversy in the early church regarding female teachers).

Personally, I think it is mainly just wild speculation when trying to decide who wrote Hebrews. The only thing I feel confident saying about it is that it definitely wasn't Paul.

[diglot]

P.S. any NT canon for me would have to include Hebrews. It is a wonderful piece of early Christian literature.

[Damien the Leper]

P.S. any NT canon for me would have to include Hebrews. It is a wonderful piece of early Christian literature.

I completely agree. Whomever wrote Hebrews was definitely insightful in things concerned with theology. I'm a big fan.